Background/Purpose: Therapeutic, non-pharmacological interventions involving animatronic ("robotic") cats and dogs are frequently delivered within long-term care (LTC) settings. To date, researchers have focused on therapeutic impacts for residents living with mild-to-moderate dementia. The objective of this project, however, was to explore practical considerations for introducing robotic pet programming into a LTC setting for this resident population.
Method: Data from longitudinal qualitative group views and observations were synthesized and triangulated to understand and evaluate practical approaches to facilitating robotic pet programming for residents living with dementia in LTC. Two group interviews with recreation staff (n=4-6) from a care facility in Calgary, Alberta, were conducted to compare perspectives before and one month after the program's introduction. Researchers also observed program delivery during this period.
Results: Recreation staff and researchers noted a range of resident responses to robotic pets, from strong attachments to disinterest. Offering residents opportunities to briefly "take care of the pets" to assist staff enhanced engagement for some residents. Staff and researchers noted anxiety when residents were disinterested in robotic pets or were ready for an interaction to end. Intake assessments establishing past trauma related to animals could suggest exclusion from the intervention, yet a history of pet ownership was not necessary for a resident to benefit from robotic pets.
Discussion: Robotic pet programming may enhance quality of life for many but not all LTC residents living with dementia. How staff deliver the intervention can influence resident response. An awareness of prospective challenges will help mitigate unintended negative experiences for some residents.
Conclusion: Understanding the practical implications of introducing robotic pets into care settings will help enhance robotic pets' therapeutic potential for residents living with mild-to-moderate dementia.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
1 Dept of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine
2 Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary